From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingram v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 21, 2014
585 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 14-7269

11-21-2014

JAMES R. INGRAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Department of Corrections; EARL R. BARKSDALE, Warden of Buckingham Correctional Center, Respondents - Appellees.

James R. Ingram, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00382-GEC-RSB) Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Ingram, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

James R. Ingram, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ingram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

Ingram v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 21, 2014
585 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Ingram v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:JAMES R. INGRAM, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 21, 2014

Citations

585 F. App'x 236 (4th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Smith

There being in the present case no question which can properly be adjudicated without reference to the…

Progressive Life Ins. Co. v. Wallace

upreme Court, which are controlling on this court, such so-called brief of evidence will not be considered,…